Staff —

SOPA Resistance Day begins at Ars

Why Ars Technica opposes the Stop Online Piracy Act.

Today is SOPA Resistance Day at Ars. Sites across the 'Net, from reddit to the Internet Archive, from Wikipedia to Google, are protesting the excesses of the Stop Online Piracy Act. SOPA remains a flawed bill that treats piracy as an existential threat to the US economy and to a sacred class of rightsholders—and in doing so loses all perspective on appropriate remedies. The discussion is absolutely unbalanced.

Many sites have chosen to go dark (i.e., offline) today, a stance we respect—but it's not the right path for us. Ars Technica has, for 14 years, tried to be an information resource, and the most appropriate response from Ars is to provide even more information on the legislation, how you can fight it, and what's really at stake.

Our normal publishing schedule has been frozen in carbonite. For a limited time, we're turning our attention to SOPA and its Senate cousin, the PROTECT IP Act. What remains in each bill after the managers' amendments and the removal of DNS blocking? What would we like to see in a vastly improved SOPA 2.0? Is there a way forward?

Most importantly, what can you do to make your voice heard? Writing a boring note to your Senator won't get the job done. So we're going to show you our tips on really ruffling feathers en masse. Some people are already celebrating the death of SOPA, but we all know this is far, far from over.

We'll be covering all these stories and more throughout the day, and we'll be documenting the protests and the responses to them. Come back in the morning for the first installment of our Fighting Back Guide.

A few words of sanity

Piracy is an emotional issue, but it's important to note what it is not: a war between the "creators" and the "technologists." Ars Technica lives or dies by our content and its copyright. So does publisher Tim O'Reilly. So does musician Peter Gabriel. Yet all of us oppose SOPA. It's time for supporters of SOPA and SOPA-like legislation to drop the conveniently facile caricatures they have of their opponents. Millions of us believe in intellectual property as a fair concept that can have an important place in our society. And for a subset of us, it's our intellectual property that's at risk anyway.

There's room to build a reasonable consensus for dealing with the "worst of the worst" online. But that means going back to the drawing board and bringing the tech community and Internet users to the table before legislation is drafted. Creating a sudden "emergency" around the issue and using only the perspective of the biggest rightsholders as a starting point is no way to legislate on key Internet issues—and band-aid patches to such a flawed approach aren't going to fix that.

SOPA needs to be stopped—and then we can start the hyperbole-free conversation that the content industries and the White House both say they want.

We challenge the White House, the Congress, and all supporters of SOPA: engage with us and with the Internet community on assessing the real threat of piracy and the appropriate response to it. This isn't a PR stunt. Ars Technica has the longest track record online of taking these matters seriously and listening to both sides. We can save you a lot of time by pointing out the areas in which your failure is all but assured—and point the way forward on areas where we can find common ground. We'll have more later today on ways to move forward with a strategy that isn't dead before you think of it. Meanwhile, the smartest, most tech savvy people on the Internet will be here, waiting for your next move.

Ken Fisher
Ken is the founder & Editor-in-Chief of Ars Technica. A veteran of the IT industry and a scholar of antiquity, Ken studies the emergence of intellectual property regimes and their effects on culture and innovation. Emailken@arstechnica.com//Twitter@kenfisher

236 Reader Comments

As a voting member of BAFTA I'm interested in comments about the MPAA. It's only my personal opinion of course but the MPAA have always stuck me as being the quintessential devil in the dark, motivated only by greed and an almost neo-fascist need for control. In the US, you seem to have a small number of institutions like this that exercise disproportionate control. I like the rest of you guys though

SOPA is a bad idea badly thought through. What's especially sad and pathetic about it is that it misses the point of the last decade of Internet distribution and cries back to a time when those same institutions held sway. SOPA is basically legislation to protect dinosaurs.

As for Ars Technica; I would not have expected anything less than an intelligent, proportional response - but Jimmy Wales is right too. Yes, it's time to man the barricades.

<blockquote>Millions of us believe in intellectual property as a fair concept that can have an important place in our society. And for a subset of us, it's our intellectual property that's at risk, anyway.</blockquote>

There is no such thing as Intellectual Property. Intellect creates ideas, and ideas are not property. Our society was created by building off of the ideas of others. Having IP laws is a step backwards and is only going to cause more problems by making criminals of people who are the innovators of making this world a better place. Sharing ideas allows us all to live better lives, not fore the sake of profits that are consolidated at the top of the food chain.

You're right. It's not a war between "creators" and "technologists". It's a war between people who live by their content and people who are assholes who feel entitled to any damn thing they can get their hands on.

SOPA/PIPA explicitly provide mechanisms for rightsholders to arbitrarily declare a website 'mine' and take precipituous action against it. Complaining about pirates' sense of entitlement while demonstrating a sense of entitlement at least as large is at the very least poor psychology. It might be problematic in other ways as well.

In addition, this framing of the issue, as a 'war', with two sides (people who 'live by their content' and 'assholes') ignores significant realities of the situation:1. the people most loudly in favor of these laws simply don't make a living off of 'their content'. They make a living by buying rights to content that other people produce, by exploiting those people with abusive contracts, with obfuscatory accounting methods, and outright lying and cheating.

2. There's definitely more than jus two sides here, and by ignoring people who aren't 'assholes' but who are opposed to SOPA/PIPA you effectively prevent any sort of rational dialogue (because who's going to have a rational dialogue with an 'asshole' thief?).

Quote:

ArsTech does not live by its content. It lives by its viewership. Whatever gets people to show up on the site gets ArsTech money. That's fine if you can manage it, but not everyone can.

While this is true in some abstract sense, it ignores the fact that what gets people to show up on the site is...their content. I suppose it's possible that I'm wrong about this, but evidence would be nice to see.

Quote:

Literature does not work based on viewership. In order to make literature work that way, you'd have to be constantly producing pages of a work, and that just leads to hack writing and shitty storytelling (compared to a proper novel). The best you might get under such circumstance is comic books: a perpetual, eternal now where all stories continue indefinitely, nothing ever happens permanently, and anything that occurs may be undone or destroyed at any time.

Some music can work by performance. But not all. Even then, you're throwing away a lot of money, forcing people to spend more time going from crappy venue to crappy venue performing the same songs. Time not spent writing new ones.

It doesn't work for film at all. It doesn't work for television either. Some videogames can work that way, but again, constantly supporting one game detracts from making something new. And it only works for some games; self-contained experiences (rather than unending MMO crap) need not apply.

The trouble with this prophesy is that there's no evidence that this is the way it'd actually turn out. Yes, it makes a great story, and there's lots of 'common sense' behind it. There was a great story and lots of 'common sense' about how letting women vote would destroy the country, and they influenced the vote via their husbands anyway, so don't let them. There was a great story and lots of 'common sense' about lots of things which turn out to be totally wrong. So far there's zero evidence that the current status quo (never mind copyright reform or even outright abolition) would result in anything like what you post above.

But we're expected to accept your bald assertions because you're awesome? because pirates are 'assholes'? Seriously, why should I accept your folk story instead of a different one where easier access to works leads to increased creativity and a flowering of literature, music, film, and other content, where multitudes of people get creative, and many of those start to see appreciable income as a result, all due to the removal of the legal formalities which end up requiring multi-billion-dollar corporations to front money for projects, because they've made it too expensive for anyone else to come to the party?

Quote:

Yes, SOPA is terrible. It's short-sieghted, over-reaching, won't do anything actually useful, and can be horribly abused. It should be scrapped ASAP.

But that doesn't mean that we should just continue business as usual.

This is the first thing you've written that I agree with. We shouldn't continue business as usual. We should require those demanding a change o the status quo to present evidence and reasoned argument for their changes, rather than hysterical rhetoric, outright lies, and vague, hand-waving implications of doom if we don't adopt their changes. We should consider the evidence provided by over 30 years of the current copyright regime in the USA and perhaps adjust our copyright laws in light of that evidence. The trouble with this approach is that:

a) you don't get to call people parasites or assholesb) the changes indicated by the evidence don't allow vigilante justice to be applied by multi-billion-dollar international distribution corporations without oversightc) the changes indicated by the evidence might not support granting rightsholders ever more privileges, heaping ever-more burdens on the societies who subsidize them, and generally costing everyone (except those making lots of money already) quite a bit of money, time, and effort.

Quote:

I just hate it when certain media outlets look on piracy with such a flippant attitude. Not out of any genuine issue, but because they just so happen to be a form of media that is impervious to piracy. It's easy to say that "just adapt to piracy and compete with free" when you're in a medium that doesn't have to do anything.

Ars technica doesn't have a 'flippant' attitude towards piracy. A flip attitude would be 'let them eat cake', or perhaps 'copyright is an outmoded concept in a digital world anyway', or something else. What isn't a flippant attitude is to say that while piracy might be a real problem (evidence would be nice, of course), solutions to that problem must be in accord with our basic ideas on the rule of law, rights of free speech, the concept that punishments should be proportional to the infraction, and that sovereign nations have a right to self-determination.

That's to say nothing of the requirement that solutions to the problem should provide us with at least some vague assurances that they'd actually be effective (again, that'd be a responsibility of those who are arguing for the change in the status quo, not a responsibility of those opposing the change).

Literature does not work based on viewership. In order to make literature work that way, you'd have to be constantly producing pages of a work, and that just leads to hack writing and shitty storytelling (compared to a proper novel). The best you might get under such circumstance is comic books: a perpetual, eternal now where all stories continue indefinitely, nothing ever happens permanently, and anything that occurs may be undone or destroyed at any time.

Yeah, because in the Victorian era we didn't have mass serialisation of stories in newspapers. That didn't happen at all.

In fact, I'm pretty sure that the whole Sherlock Holmes thing was just an opium-induced fever dream I had last week, and that authors like Dickens produced no literature whatsoever - much less any that was serialised in newspapers.

This doesn't mean that you're completely wrong. But you do seem to be making statements that history disagrees with.

None of that excuses copyright infringement, of course. Just as none of it justifies legal ossification of creative markets.

There are probably social and business reasons why nobody is serialising fiction like they did a century ago. If I had to guess, it would probably be because people can afford books now, whereas a century ago they were prohibitively expensive for most people.

But the idea that the medium of delivery absolutely dictates the quality of art doesn't just seem ludicrous to me - it seems disproved by history to me.

Should we really prop up today's preferred business models by laws which will restrict the market's ability to innovate and (in their current form) endanger freedom of speech?

How deliciously appropriate that the art should be using communist logos. That, more than anything, says all I need to know about opposition to this bill.

This comment, more than anything, says all I need to know about your intelligence.

edit: let me guess, you'd have preferred a crying bald eagle

No, because a crying bald eagle would have been equally as daft. At least The Register isn't launching itself off the deep-end over this and acting like the world is about to end online. Which is doubly interesting since they're in the UK and are part of who the legislation would supposedly be hurting most.

It's funny. The DMCA raised exactly the same spectres and drew in much of the same types of opposition. Yet here we are in 2012 enjoying the internet like never before in spite of it. Nobody's rights got trampled. Nobody's innovation got stifled. Online life went on more or less like normal. Unless you were running a pirate warez site within US territory.

It's funny. The DMCA raised exactly the same spectres and drew in much of the same types of opposition. Yet here we are in 2012 enjoying the internet like never before in spite of it. Nobody's rights got trampled. Nobody's innovation got stifled. Online life went on more or less like normal.

Go to YouTube and search for "false DMCA claim". See how both individuals and companies have misused DMCA to try and censor others.

It's worth noting that DMCA at least has robust language, and due process. Yes, the process for a takedown assumes guilt rather than innocence - inexcusable in my opinion - but there is at least a defined process which is feasible to implement without breaking internet security. And that process even works occasionally.

The DMCA even has punishments for false claims - although nobody ever seems to be punished, but at least it's there.

Amazingly, what we're protesting is legislation that makes the DMCA look decent. That's not a good sign.

SOPA/PIPA and their ilk are not the DMCA, and to claim that they are means you have not researched this. These bills grant vast and ill-defined powers with little to no oversight of the process and no recourse for those abused by it, much less any punishment for the abusers.

If you think that SOPA/PIPA won't be abused, then the DMCA is exactly the law you should be looking at for an example of how they will be abused.

SOPA is a bad idea badly thought through. What's especially sad and pathetic about it is that it misses the point of the last decade of Internet distribution and cries back to a time when those same institutions held sway. SOPA is basically legislation to protect dinosaurs.

This. Instead of figuring out how they're going to adapt to changing technology, Hollywood is using bribery to force through bad legislation that would effectively destroy the internet as we know it. Theaters and physical media are pretty much obsolete at this point, and releasing films in 3D isn't going to get people back into theaters.

A big part of the reason people illegally download movies isn't even because it's free. It's mostly because it's convenient, and Hollywood really hasn't figured out digital distribution at this point. Just look at how dreadful the selection of movies is on Netflix streaming for instance. If someone came out with a service that offered a large selection of good movies for streaming and download for a low monthly fee, you would definitely see a decline in piracy. But nothing like that exists right now. Bit-torrent is currently the fastest, easiest way to get movies.

Ultimately, instead of changing with the times, Hollywood wants to keep us in the dark ages.

Wikipedia mobile seems to still be up for those who didn't realize, were confused or just couldn't go a day without it. I do support this protest and I hope it ruffles a lot of feathers. Feeling very 1981 these days..

It's funny. The DMCA raised exactly the same spectres and drew in much of the same types of opposition. Yet here we are in 2012 enjoying the internet like never before in spite of it. Nobody's rights got trampled. Nobody's innovation got stifled. Online life went on more or less like normal. Unless you were running a pirate warez site within US territory.

The fact that you can say the DMCA has not trampled anyone's rights is proof of its effectiveness in completely destroying dissenting voices. It has had an incredible chilling effect on research and free expression, not to mention completely subverting the notion of fair use. Read this for starters: https://www.eff.org/wp/unintended-conse ... under-dmca

Despite the negative impact of the DMCA, it was actually held somewhat in check by a fairly reasonable and very experienced Register of Copyrights, Marybeth Peters, who had a pretty balanced view of the pros and cons of copyright enforcement. As Ars has reported (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news ... y-fail.ars), the new Register, Maria Pallante, has taken another view.

[Something perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned here..But I did it anyway. It's me Evolution, man. Say the impossible.] The art work reminded me of the old Soviet slogan of arm and hammer. To the power, for the people, and whatnot. While SOPA is all about politic, no? It's still a bit of too political to me. Hey don't get me wrong it's good art work, though.

The Soviet symbolism was a sickle and a hammer. The raised fist as a call to action is used for far more things, by rock stars and hooligans. The red color is not exclusive to socialism; it's also an alert to show that something's amiss. I'm sure Aurich can explain it in even more detail.

Would you have preferred the Vulcan salute, or a Sieg Heil? Because you can't do many other things when you abstract someone's hand to a symbol.

I am all for being against SOPA and the theme of today being to protest it across the entire web, but Wiki and other sites should just do the full-page splash thing AND THEN LET ME ACCESS THE SITE.

Keeping me from accessing the site entirely is stupid and not going to make me do anything different - the Ars way is better - make it loud and clear but allow normal site operations.

Just my opinion, but even if 24 hours without site X isnt a big deal, there are better ways to handle it than attempting to strong arm your audience into doing something. Just educate them and be on your way - EXACTLY like what Ars is doing...

You can still find whatever Wikipedia article you're looking for in the Google cache if you really need it today.

If you're up for creating another graphic this story's banner makes an excellent Facebook cover with just a small addition to it's length. I've done that already for my own purposes, but I don't think my work is good enough to share here.

Thanks Ars for taking part in this action, it makes me value your productions all the more for it.

On a side note, I really like that new graphic theme, both the black background and the cool banners and logos. I find it remarkable that when invoking an imagery of resistance, especially in an industrial context, Soviet styled graphics still seem surprisingly appropriate.

Yoozer wrote:

The Soviet symbolism was a sickle and a hammer. The raised fist as a call to action is used for far more things, by rock stars and hooligans. The red color is not exclusive to socialism; it's also an alert to show that something's amiss. I'm sure Aurich can explain it in even more detail.

No matter how you want to turn things, this imagery: the choice of color, the fist design, the choice of font, the angular drawings all are clearly reminiscent of soviet art (not that this is a bad thing in my eye). This remains true even if every single element taken separately can also be linked to prior art style or symbolism.

I'm going to be writing to my MP (I'm British) about SOPA and PIPA in the next 24 hours, but I'd like to read the Ars take on things (and community suggestions) to give me inspiration and help me write a persuasive letter.

The image will be going up on the forums I frequent (I'm not on facebook or G+ or anything, but will encourage others to repost.)

I love the theme and would be quite happy to keep it, although its so awesome I wonder if it should be kept for special occasions.

The Soviet symbolism was a sickle and a hammer. The raised fist as a call to action is used for far more things, by rock stars and hooligans. The red color is not exclusive to socialism; it's also an alert to show that something's amiss. I'm sure Aurich can explain it in even more detail.

Would you have preferred the Vulcan salute, or a Sieg Heil? Because you can't do many other things when you abstract someone's hand to a symbol.

Sieg Heil means "victory to you, sir, [SOPA]" and the Vulcan Salute is a welcoming hand gesture to all my friends - [SOPA]. In this case SOPA is not our friend. So neither one work for the purpose of this thread.

I am all for being against SOPA and the theme of today being to protest it across the entire web, but Wiki and other sites should just do the full-page splash thing AND THEN LET ME ACCESS THE SITE.

Keeping me from accessing the site entirely is stupid and not going to make me do anything different - the Ars way is better - make it loud and clear but allow normal site operations.

Just my opinion, but even if 24 hours without site X isnt a big deal, there are better ways to handle it than attempting to strong arm your audience into doing something. Just educate them and be on your way - EXACTLY like what Ars is doing...

The Wikipedia community, as part of their request to the Wikimedia Foundation to carry out this protest, asked us to ensure that we make English Wikipedia accessible in some way during an emergency. The English Wikipedia will be accessible on mobile devices and smart phones. You can also view Wikipedia normally by completely disabling JavaScript in your browser."

I am all for being against SOPA and the theme of today being to protest it across the entire web, but Wiki and other sites should just do the full-page splash thing AND THEN LET ME ACCESS THE SITE.

Keeping me from accessing the site entirely is stupid and not going to make me do anything different - the Ars way is better - make it loud and clear but allow normal site operations.

Just my opinion, but even if 24 hours without site X isnt a big deal, there are better ways to handle it than attempting to strong arm your audience into doing something. Just educate them and be on your way - EXACTLY like what Ars is doing...

The Wikipedia community, as part of their request to the Wikimedia Foundation to carry out this protest, asked us to ensure that we make English Wikipedia accessible in some way during an emergency. The English Wikipedia will be accessible on mobile devices and smart phones. You can also view Wikipedia normally by completely disabling JavaScript in your browser."

They should have blocked access to it completely for the day. It's like a person on hunger strike is still going out to eat.

I can't do much in the way of demonstrating against SOPA / PIPA directly, but I can support you folks in your efforts. Here's hoping I see some adverts from folks I want to buy stuff from, especially in a professional capacity.

I am all for being against SOPA and the theme of today being to protest it across the entire web, but Wiki and other sites should just do the full-page splash thing AND THEN LET ME ACCESS THE SITE.

Keeping me from accessing the site entirely is stupid and not going to make me do anything different - the Ars way is better - make it loud and clear but allow normal site operations.

Just my opinion, but even if 24 hours without site X isnt a big deal, there are better ways to handle it than attempting to strong arm your audience into doing something. Just educate them and be on your way - EXACTLY like what Ars is doing...

The Wikipedia community, as part of their request to the Wikimedia Foundation to carry out this protest, asked us to ensure that we make English Wikipedia accessible in some way during an emergency. The English Wikipedia will be accessible on mobile devices and smart phones. You can also view Wikipedia normally by completely disabling JavaScript in your browser."

They should have blocked access to it completely for the day. It's like a person on hunger strike is still going out to eat.

Couldn't agree more. Like the OP (quoted) said, he wants to view a splash screen and then be able to view the site. What good will that do? Do you read the EULA's you agree to when you install software? No, because you can click through and continue on your merry way, without reading a single word of it.

Good on Wikipedia for making it technically challenging (fnar) to access Wikipedia from the desktop today. If only 1% of the people who see the screen read the details, that's hundreds of thousands of people more informed about the dangers of SOPA / PIPA than they were yesterday.

I've already called my representatives offices and used their contact form. I will repeatedly be doing this throughout the day. It's only 7:30 AM in Mass. right now, so the offices are not opened. Most of the mailboxes were full already and wouldn't let you leave a message, but Scott Brown's was still accepting. Remember people, polite but firm. It doesn't help to remind them who they work for.

And I'm glad to see Ars participating. And Google? Wholly moly I wasn't expecting as much. I hope that gets some people's attention!

I'm in a bad mood today. I'll try to reinterate some things I posted in the past. If I can think of them . Lets see....RIAA does not need the legislation. MPAA does not need the legislation. The general public does not need the leglislation. The government does not need the legislation.

RIAA. RIAA has already rights they need to do as they wish to implement rules of their copyright protections. They can do the same as any other with a functioning web and take care of what they deem is a violation of their copyrights. Although there is court,and given procedures .

MPAA. MPAA has already rights they need to do as they wish to implement rules of their copyright protections. They can do the same as any other with a functiong web and take care of what they deem is a violation of their copyrights. Although there is court,and given procedures to be made .

General Public

Most of these can first realize that under our system of government,that there is a right to address your acusers,and you have a presumption of innocence. And that no law can do any of this w/o right to due process in a court.....but wait,...<- this is actually under criminal law. Oh I'm .....

Government

The legislation mostly deals with 'Internet',and supposedly puts the realized inforcement under some kind of sanctuary that is void of actual legitamacy of a court which has a recognizable jurisdiction. Oh well heck FBI can do anything,and as for DHS isn't the U.S. still all territories west of D.C. ?

Why RIAA does not need this: Everybody has their governed rights. Many artists would agree to,and in fact their works bear out that relationship. The web offers new relationships to its members from past components of copyright.And frankly copyright itself is flawed from the perspective of conducting publication at the advantage of the author and the authors own implementation of those rights. RIAA really does not have agreement of its members to a specification of conducting its members with the public in consideration of the new electronic relationships. Although its members have very good rational to conduct their own affairs,there is not actually an industry specification that is conductive beyond the itenery of the present conduct of business to the participants of copyright. RIAA needs to change copyright law itself. No as a relationship to piracy,but as a relationship of conducting an authors own affairs within that right in publication.

Why MPAA does not need this: The general public has spent nearly 40 billion dollars to implement technology under DMCA. I really don't know this figure,but with replacing every aspect device necesary to participate to the MPAA copyrighted work(s) every piece of machinery in the last 10 years have been replaced,at the expense of the public to do so. While this is not legislation to change that machinery,it is exactly the same disregard for a public that has right of communications ,and interaction involved that is ignored within their own rights for the asparation of the copyrighted participation to that communications. MPAA does not see that that part completely indifferent of a necesity of copyright has that freedom which in fact is secondary to the implementations of the same conduit necesary of MPAAs implementations of their copyrights.

This is a old argument. And the general public must move on soon to implement the corresponding new technologies in communications available to them.

Why the General Public does not need this: The automation is killing us ! The web works on automation. The ideal that some imaginary due process,for an imaginary court,and imaginary legal process - legended after common law. Is going to help anybody with their daily routines. The web is composed of utilizing distant references in participation of interaction. The ideal that only copyright legitimizes that existence is simply wrong. And again I dont ask RIAA,or MPAA for permision,nor library of congress,to create a web site,nor conduct advertising in order to give 'rights' to be able to do so. Traditional media does not understand this. It is their understanding that they wish to infer on this. Howebeit,and imaginery government,and imaginery process,with imaginery execution (basically vigilante,or wild west ) of laws - the automation. Is just the kind of relevance they can consider controlling. Everybody has legal process. The present legal process is adaquate. Until there is better.

Why the government does not need this: There is simply an open and consitent web /internet at present. The government has given aspects of implementing the laws that are conducted amongst its members. The bett is that in a brag of 'bigger men',if this is not agree to then those in contention can 'take this to court' ,as something perhaps unconstitutional. Or whatever basis a legal challenge would make. I can only say that this is nothing to do with legal challenges,or court battles. There is no way to implement this without destructing the basis of having a working web amongst distance indifferent portrayers in communications. The only substistance to running the web has been a given courtesy amongst its members to portray that courtesy. The government looses when it considers itself the only progenity of the existence of the content of our communications. Whereby we are under a 'monitor' ,and must capitulate to that monitor. Again RIAA,and MPAA already have implementable relationships among web iteractions to conduct their relationships for their copyrights.

It is pretty easy to understand that if copyright was recognized more throughly and part of the education system that copyrights would be more respected. There is plenty of abuse in copyright however,that is not necesary. As many will attest to.

For me,I say dont put your 'Fair Use on the electronic web. Give us ,and authors some implementable standards. And get out of the way of our communications.

Finally To Congress:

There is not simply an U.S.Internet court,magistrate exactly.

Give us a REAL internet policeman with a recognizable twirly bird someone could appreciate some time. Acting as spies,and accusing all of evils is wrong. I mean come on, your all smoke and no mirrors ? Light something up would you already . I dont mean arriving late with the cavalry over the burning embers.

Well done Ars; knock these arseholes down with clear thinking and cold logic. Expose the bullshit for what it really is.

Like many others, my humble web sites have had their front pages replaced with a simple protest page that links here and to sopastrike.com (among others).

I have also cancelled my cable TV (and even though I am in Australia, that revenue trickles back to SOPA interests), and I also refuse to buy anything from any organisation that I know as being a supporter of ACTA/PIPA/SOPA.

Just reading up on the actual corporate backers of this bill and it seems to me that while the MPAA and RIAA seem to be positioned in front of the pack, most of the companies listed are not exactly digital content providers but retailers and pharmaceuticals (Burberry, Nike, Pfizer, eg). Check it out for yourself... http://www.theglobalipcenter.com/sites/ ... er-359.pdf

I'm all for preventing this bill and will do my part to voice that opinion but corporations going down this path are hypocritical at the very least. Implementing censorship in this country to protect their IP overseas, I mean really, rogue websites overseas publishing movies or selling knock offs is only the effects of their real problem. The real issue is that most of these corporations squeeze out the highest profit margins by infringing on human rights manufacturing in other countries by buying out their governments and now they want to infringe on ours to squeeze that last dollar by buying out our government.

And as far as the movie and record industry. You're already filthy rich in a billion dollar industry that's still growing! Can't y'all do something more productive with your money than lining a politicians pockets to infringe on my rights!